FILE - Off-road vehicles are driven on the property owned by Controlled Thermal Resources, which will be mined for lithium along the Salton Sea, in Niland, Calif., on July 15, 2021. The federal government said Monday, Nov. 28, 2022, it will spend $250 million over four years on environmental cleanup and restoration work around the Salton Sea, a drying Southern California lake that's fed by the depleted Colorado River. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File)
Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.
Proposition 4 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion by issuing bonds bonds for natural resources and climate activities. Individual proposals include efforts to ensure safe drinking water, strengthen drought, flood and water “resilience,” increase clean energy production, address sea level rise, create parks and outdoor access, provide heat mitigation or fund wildfire prevention programs.
Yes: Clean water advocate says it’s time to invest in proven climate solutions now rather than pay later. Too many Californians live without a clean, safe water supply and more are served by at-risk systems. Proposition 4 requires that at least 40% of its funding gets directed to disadvantaged communities, who need it the most.
No: California senator says we can’t afford to fund supposed climate programs promised by a state that hasn’t delivered on past commitments. The measure includes programs that are vaguely defined and, in some cases, dubiously labeled, and the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill. And while some programs may be worth pursuing, they shouldn’t be funded with long-term debt.
Editorial: Proposition 4 favors politics over sound policy with a hodgepodge of environmental programs that lack clear priorities. After this year’s state budget debacle, elected leaders should not be eyeing new bonds and more debt for an unfocused spending plan. The measure reads like a shopping list more than a sound policy proposal.
Originally published at The Mercury News/East Bay Times Editorial Boards